02/23/2007 01:00 PM House RESOURCES
| Audio | Topic |
|---|---|
| Start | |
| HB26 | |
| HB127 | |
| Adjourn |
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| + | HB 26 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| *+ | HB 127 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | TELECONFERENCED |
ALASKA STATE LEGISLATURE
HOUSE RESOURCES STANDING COMMITTEE
February 23, 2007
1:08 p.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT
Representative Carl Gatto, Co-Chair
Representative Paul Seaton
Representative Peggy Wilson
Representative David Guttenberg
Representative Scott Kawasaki
MEMBERS ABSENT
Representative Craig Johnson, Co-Chair
Representative Vic Kohring
Representative Bob Roses
Representative Bryce Edgmon
COMMITTEE CALENDAR
HOUSE BILL NO. 26
"An Act relating to aquatic farm permitting involving geoducks
and to geoduck seed transfers between certified hatcheries and
aquatic farms."
- HEARD AND HELD
HOUSE BILL NO. 127
"An Act amending the boundaries of the McNeil River State Game
Sanctuary."
- HEARD AND HELD
PREVIOUS COMMITTEE ACTION
BILL: HB 26
SHORT TITLE: GEODUCK AQUATIC FARMING EXEMPTION
SPONSOR(s): REPRESENTATIVE(s) SEATON
01/16/07 (H) PREFILE RELEASED 1/5/07
01/16/07 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS
01/16/07 (H) FSH, RES
02/02/07 (H) FSH AT 8:30 AM CAPITOL 124
02/02/07 (H) Heard & Held
02/02/07 (H) MINUTE(FSH)
02/05/07 (H) FSH AT 8:30 AM CAPITOL 124
02/05/07 (H) Heard & Held
02/05/07 (H) MINUTE(FSH)
02/07/07 (H) FSH AT 8:30 AM CAPITOL 124
02/07/07 (H) Moved CSHB 26(FSH) Out of Committee
02/07/07 (H) MINUTE(FSH)
02/08/07 (H) FSH RPT CS(FSH) 1DP 4NR
02/08/07 (H) DP: SEATON
02/08/07 (H) NR: LEDOUX, JOHANSEN, HOLMES, EDGMON
02/23/07 (H) RES AT 1:00 PM CAPITOL 124
BILL: HB 127
SHORT TITLE: MCNEIL RIVER STATE GAME SANCTUARY
SPONSOR(s): REPRESENTATIVE(s) SEATON
02/12/07 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS
02/12/07 (H) RES, FIN
02/23/07 (H) RES AT 1:00 PM CAPITOL 124
WITNESS REGISTER
RODGER PAINTER, President
Alaska Shellfish Growers Association
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of HB 26.
ALAN AUSTERMAN
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified that HB 26 is really an economic
development issue and moving geoducks from one part of the state
to another provides an opportunity and isn't really problematic.
JIM SEEB, Chief Fisheries Scientist
Division of Commercial Fisheries
Alaska Department of Fish & Game
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: During hearing of HB 26, expressed concerns
with regard to the unknown and unintended consequences of
introducing a species to areas in which it is not naturally
occurring.
JOHN HILSINGER, Fishery Biologist IV
Division of Sport Fish
Alaska Department of Fish & Game
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: During hearing of HB 26, expressed concerns
with regard to the unknown and unintended consequences of
introducing a species to areas in which it is not naturally
occurring.
CYNTHIA PRING-HAM, Mariculture Coordinator
Division of Commercial Fisheries
Alaska Department of Fish & Game
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Answered questions in regard to geoducks.
JEFF HETRICK, Director
Alutiiq Pride Shellfish Hatchery
Seward, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Answered questions in regard to geoducks.
DAVID OTNESS
Shellfish grower
Seward, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Supported geoduck farming and mariculture
in Alaska.
ACTION NARRATIVE
CO-CHAIR CARL GATTO called the House Resources Standing
Committee meeting to order at 1:08:48 PM. Representatives
Gatto, Kawasaki, Kohring, Wilson, and Guttenberg were present at
the call to order.
HB 26-GEODUCK AQUATIC FARMING EXEMPTION
1:09:21 PM
CO-CHAIR GATTO announced that the first order of business would
be HOUSE BILL NO. 26, "An Act relating to aquatic farm
permitting involving geoducks and to geoduck seed transfers
between certified hatcheries and aquatic farms." [Before the
committee was CSHB 26(FSH).]
1:09:39 PM
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON, speaking as the sponsor of HB 26,
explained that the bill specifies that the Alaska Department of
Fish & Game (ADF&G) cannot use the absence of geoducks in an
area as the reason for denying a mariculture farm permit.
Therefore, this legislation allows geoduck farmers in an area
without geoducks to apply for permits. He informed the
committee that geoducks are the largest clam in North America.
Geoducks live on the bottom, are not mobile at all, and dig down
about one foot per year as they grow. Representative Seaton
pointed out that geoducks became valuable as a result of
improved marketing and thus have risen from $1 per pound to $10
per pound. They are sold live to Asia. Furthermore, it is
recognized that the more clams that become available from
Alaska, the more Alaska will be viewed as a source for geoducks.
He said the natural range of geoducks is from Puget Sound
through Canada to Alaska, as far north as Tenakee Springs. No
known infectious diseases have been identified in geoducks, in
the wild or the farming in British Columbia and the State of
Washington. The only problem is warts on the outside of the
shell that are caused by certain cells in the muscle tissue that
are then moved by the clam to the outside of its shell.
1:14:17 PM
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON related that geoducks are probably some of
the longest living animals in the world, with reports of
geoducks living to be 140-168 years old. Furthermore, geoducks
grow fast as small clams and are harvestable in seven years.
The legislation before the committee restricts geoduck farming
to the subtidal zone in areas located north of Southeast Alaska.
The aforementioned means that there won't be conflicts with
those who land skiffs on the beach, dig clams, and collect
seaweed. Geoduck farms in the subtidal zone will not be
exposed, even at a very low tide. These farms do not require
the tremendous number of buoys that are required for suspended
culture for oyster farms in Prince William Sound and Cook Inlet
where there have been conflicts because people cannot boat due
to the buoys. Therefore, the benthic farms proposed in HB 26
will not have that conflict.
1:16:07 PM
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON, addressing the fact that these proposed
farms would be outside the larval drift zones, opined that these
geoducks will likely not be sexually active/mature and thus will
not place larvae into the water column at the sites north [of
Juneau]. However, he acknowledged that cannot be determined for
sure. Representative Seaton then turned to the department's
concern with regard to having geoducks in an area where they are
not naturally occurring, which he characterized as the
ecological concern. However, he pointed out that the
aforementioned must not have been of too much concern since
ADF&G has permitted a geoduck farm 35 miles north of Juneau, an
area outside of where geoducks occur naturally, and there does
not seem to be any detrimental impacts. This legislation, he
opined, offers a manner in which to provide a possible economic
base for isolated communities with very little risk as geoducks
are not a new species in Alaska. He highlighted that nothing in
HB 26 allows the importation of geoduck seed from outside of
Alaska.
1:18:47 PM
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON, in response to Representative Kawasaki,
informed the committee that the geoduck farm in Bridget Cove is
located above the range of where geoducks naturally occur. The
farm in Bridget Cove has been permitted, but has not yet gone
into operation.
REPRESENTATIVE KAWASAKI, referring to "Attachment 1 Introduced
Species (Transporting Geoducks Outside Their Natural Range),"
drew attention to the following: "In summary, introduced
species are a major threat because their interactions with other
biota are unpredictable ...."
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON said that he is very cognizant of that,
adding that he is very opposed to finfish farming. He specified
that he is not supportive of introducing a predatory or mobile
species into an area. However, geoducks are a sedentary species
for which there is a history in Southeast Alaska. He opined
that it is not reasonable to assume that geoducks are a species
for which there is no history or for which a reasonable
projection can be made. Much information has been gathered from
laboratories reviewing Southeast Alaska. No one has presented
any information that the presence of geoducks in southern
Southeast has displaced other animals in northern Southeast
Alaska. Geoducks, he pointed out, must be buried in the
appropriate substrate, and therefore would not compete with any
other species.
1:22:02 PM
REPRESENTATIVE GUTTENBERG inquired as to who is present to
testify.
CO-CHAIR GATTO surmised that Representative Guttenberg's concern
is the biology of the situation. To that concern, he pointed
out that both he and Representative Seaton have a master's
degree in biology, with Representative Seaton having a master's
in zoology and Co-Chair Gatto in ecology. Co-Chair Gatto
related that he had concern with introducing a species into an
environment where it was not previously present.
1:23:27 PM
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON clarified that the area in which the
geoducks would be introduced is basically fine sediments, mud
flats. He pointed out that it is difficult to say that an
environment is unoccupied. He acknowledged that the department
has expressed concern that polychete worms could be influenced
by the introduction of geoducks. However, the only study done
has found that in areas where geoducks have been harvested, the
polychete worm population saw a slight increase. Representative
Seaton noted that geoducks are filter feeders and eat plankton,
and thus if they are planted too densely they will grow more
slowly. Although there is a general concern of environmental
conditions, there has been no identified species that geoducks
would displace.
1:25:02 PM
REPRESENTATIVE WILSON asked if Representative Seaton has talked
with any of the geoduck farmers.
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON replied, yes. He related that the only
concern originally was whether there would be a problem with
marketing and possibly having too many geoducks. However, it
seems that farmers are not worried because an increase of
geoducks coming from Alaska will result in more people looking
to Alaska as a good supplier. The market, he opined, is fairly
unlimited for live geoducks in Asia. He recalled from the House
Special Committee on Fisheries meeting the question of larval
drift zones and whether geoducks introduced into the Prince
William Sound or Kodiak areas could impact Southeastern Alaska
if they unexpectedly became reproductively active. He said that
there would not be an impact as the possibility of larvae being
able to move from Kodiak to Southeast Alaska is almost
impossible according to the larval drift zone theory.
1:27:14 PM
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON, in further response to Representative
Wilson, specified that the geoduck seed would have to come from
Southeast Alaska populations. The legislation specifies that
the seed cannot be imported and can only come from an Alaska
certified hatchery, the only one of which is located in Seward.
He said that not very many animals are needed to supply the seed
necessary.
1:28:14 PM
REPRESENTATIVE WILSON related that one of the geoduck farmers in
her district ordered and paid for seed, but then never received
it. Since he missed the [seeding time], he had to wait for the
next [seeding] season. Therefore, she questioned who would
receive the first batch of seed from the one source in the
state.
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON directed attention to a letter in the
committee packet from the manager of the geoduck hatchery. Part
of the problem with supplying geoducks is that there are only a
few farms and the hatchery has not been able to get people to
commit to ordering them. Therefore, if more people are
purchasing geoducks, then the hatchery can plan ahead and raise
more. He recalled that the state put in $2.3 million to get the
mariculture hatchery going. Representative Seaton said that the
legislature needs to make the decision to either subsidize the
mariculture hatchery, let it generate enough money in
coordination with the industry to be self-sustaining, or get out
of the mariculture business. However, it is difficult because
geoducks are a significant part of the plan with the hatchery.
In fact, only one person has put money down for raising geoduck
seed ahead of time. Permitting has been problematic, but that
should change, he opined, as some of these farms come on board.
1:31:56 PM
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON, in response to Co-Chair Gatto, confirmed
that the hatchery is currently operating. In further response
to Co-Chair Gatto, Representative Seaton utilized a map to
illustrate the area along the Gulf of Alaska where HB 26 would
allow people to apply for geoduck permits as long as there is
not something in the area that would prohibit it. For instance,
in the critical habitat area in Homer the farming of shellfish
would not be allowed. Therefore, geoducks would not be allowed,
even under HB 26. This legislation merely says that ADF&G
cannot use the absence of geoducks as the criteria to prohibit
permitting a farm.
1:34:14 PM
REPRESENTATIVE GUTTENBERG inquired as to ADF&G's theory
regarding why geoducks are not naturally located farther north
or west.
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON answered that ADF&G has not had that
explanation. He offered that the reason could be related to the
photoperiod or it could be the temperature. He related that in
[the north and west of Southeast Alaska] oysters grow well, but
do not become actively reproductive because the water
temperature is too cold. As far as marketing, oysters that do
not spawn are a better product because once they spawn they
become bitter.
1:36:38 PM
REPRESENTATIVE GUTTENBERG directed attention to the language on
page 1, lines 9-10, which says "the permit may not allow
operations for that purpose in the intertidal habitat or
environment". Therefore, he questioned the location of geoduck
habitat.
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON clarified that "intertidal" means that the
geoducks would be exposed during a low tide. Therefore, not
allowing operations in an intertidal zone would protect existing
uses from being displaced, such as the collection of clams and
seaweed. He mentioned that in the State of Washington much of
the farming is done in the intertidal zone. Although geoducks
exist as deep as 300 feet in Puget Sound, they mainly live
between 10 and 80 feet in depth. For the operations in Alaska,
the depth is generally less than 30 feet. In response to Co-
Chair Gatto, Representative Seaton specified that geoducks do
live in the intertidal mud flats in the State of Washington. He
then noted that the Bridget Cove permit can be intertidal and
that decision will be left to the permittee. The further north
in Alaska the worse the conditions [for the geoduck due to the
colder water temperature].
1:40:48 PM
REPRESENTATIVE GUTTENBERG pointed out that this legislation
limits geoduck farms to areas contiguous to the Gulf of Alaska.
He inquired as to the rationale of only limiting the expansion
of [geoduck farms] to the Gulf of Alaska.
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON said he would be willing to talk with
anyone [from Bristol Bay or the Aleutians] who is interested in
geoduck farming in those areas. He suggested that ADF&G would
not be supportive of including the Beaufort Sea. "I can pretty
much say that ... the species and everything within the Gulf of
Alaska has a very broad distribution and they can be different
than those that are up in the Bering Sea," he related.
1:41:51 PM
REPRESENTATIVE GUTTENBERG asked if there has been any discussion
with regard to transferring sterilized seed.
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON responded that it is theoretically
possible. Although it has not been done with geoducks, it has
been done with some clams, he noted. He related that ADF&G has
not said it would support the introduction of genetically
changed stock, but has said that it would consider a triploid or
a sterile animal. He related that basically these small farmers
interested in sterile stock are being asked to somehow fund
basic research. He then related his understanding that a
university in British Columbia or Washington is attempting this,
but have not been successful. He reiterated that the geoducks
in the proposed expansion area will probably be functionally
sterile because of the cold water, although that is not a
certainty.
1:45:38 PM
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON, in response in to a question from
Representative Guttenberg, related his belief that if the ADF&G
commissioner is denying geoduck permits, he is probably in
violation of the law. He explained that in 2002 House Bill 208
passed and it specifically said that the two conditions to
receive permits in an area are as follows: that there are no
geoducks in the area; and that if there is a geoduck population,
it must be insignificant. Therefore, when the commissioner
denies permits based on the absence of geoducks in an area, the
commissioner is in direct violation of that. He highlighted
that the record does not specify any intention for that to speak
only to Southeastern Alaska. Therefore, HB 26 is really
clarifying legislation. Representative Seaton explained:
The big problems with geoducks here has been with the
farms and permits is that there are geoducks in most
of these areas. And where people want to put farms
are in areas where you have good upwelling and where
you have geoducks. Then you have a wild stock, which
the ... dive industry wants to harvest and that's
exactly where people want to site the farm. So, that
has been what the big geoduck contention has been in
the past. How do we take a resource which all of us
own ... and it has been historically targeted by a
commercial fishery and now turn ... part of that area
into a farm. And that's not a problem for anywhere up
here.
1:47:37 PM
CO-CHAIR GATTO recalled when zebra mussels were accidentally
introduced in the Great Lakes. Zebra mussels sought to live in
sewer lines which they ultimately clogged. Co-Chair Gatto said
he has serious concerns with regard to introducing an animal
where it does not currently exist. However, he related his
belief that some geoduck seeds have drifted all over but have
not found the right environment, possibly due to the water
temperature, otherwise they would have settled and reproduced.
Therefore, if global warming happens and waters warm, geoduck
will eventually reproduce in these areas. The question, he
opined, is whether this risk of expanding the areas in which
geoduck farms are allowed should be taken. He related his
support of the legislation because the work has been done and
that if the geoduck farm expansion does not work, "we're" no
worse off. Co-Chair Gatto said that he is willing to take the
risk unless some forthcoming testimony convinces him otherwise.
1:54:16 PM
RODGER PAINTER, President, Alaska Shellfish Growers Association,
spoke in favor of HB 26. He characterized the legislation as a
simple bill that should not raise the red flags of exotic
species, genetic nightmares, or disease. He opined that there
has been no determination that geoducks pose any threat to the
habitat or other fisheries resources. Geoducks do not move, are
very clean animals, and have very little effect on the sandy
environment in which they live. Furthermore, geoduck beds are
predominantly geoducks and aren't a mix of other species.
Contrary to what Representative Seaton said, geoducks do
occasionally reach the intertidal areas in Alaska. In terms of
disease, Mr. Painter highlighted that Alaska probably has the
most stringent shellfish pathology program in the U.S. In terms
of genetics, he opined that there should not be concerns if
these animals are farmed in areas where they do not occur
naturally. Mr. Painter pointed out that there is a large
division in terms of the water flow between Southeast Alaska and
Prince William Sound and thus it's very difficult to see how the
animals could ever make that leap. The water flows in opposite
directions as evidenced by the Exxon Valdez oil spill in which
the tar balls traveled through Prince William Sound and on
through Cook Inlet and down the Alaska Peninsula.
1:59:23 PM
MR. PAINTER then turned to the natural range of species, which
is an argument of ADF&G. The natural range of a species, he
opined, is a moving target because the range of these animals
will change as the ocean environment changes. For example,
there is some evidence that geoducks once existed in Kachemak
Bay. If the oceans continue to warm, geoducks could again be
seen in Kachemak Bay. Mr. Painter suggested that trying to
limit everything to what is today doesn't offer very good vision
as illustrated by the fact the location of the capital was once
under ice and many of today's species weren't here. He then
offered another possible result. Last year the Russians sold
about $250 million-worth of king crab that were harvested from
the Berents Sea. These are progeny of stocks that were
transplanted in the 1950s from the Bering Sea to the Berents
Sea. Mr. Painter suggested that a community such as Kodiak
would like the infusion of a $250 million harvest.
2:02:02 PM
MR. PAINTER, drawing from his geoduck farmers, related that they
found very little concern about competition for seed or market
competition. The response was that it would be [preferable] to
solve the problems with ADF&G over existing geoduck permits
prior to moving on to another venture. Contrary to ADF&G
testimony, the department has approved experiments in which
species were moved beyond their natural range. Mr. Painter
related that he personally had a permit to take purple-hinged
rock scallops from Southeast and plant them on Unalaska Island.
However, the purple-hinged rock scallops died in transit.
2:04:09 PM
MR. PAINTER acknowledged the intertidal concerns, but pointed
out that probably the lowest cost way to get involved in geoduck
culture is through intertidal culture. He then voiced
reservations about geoduck culture further north because of the
growth rates. Although not much is known about the biology of
geoducks, one known is that they are fairly lethargic at
temperatures below 50°F. Therefore, farmers always wait to
plant juvenile geoducks until the water is above 50°F so they
will dig themselves in. As the temperature cools, geoducks
don't show much because they aren't actively feeding. When
geoducks are actively feeding, one will see their necks sticking
out of the sea bottom. He pointed out that there are fewer days
in which the temperatures are warmer than 50°F in Prince William
Sound and Kodiak than in southern Southeast Alaska. Therefore,
he guessed that the growth rates would be slow enough that it
would not be economically viable to farm geoducks in those
areas.
MR. PAINTER offered the following corrections to earlier
statements. He related that the Bridget Cove geoduck farm does
have geoducks in it, although not many. In terms of ADF&G's
designated larval drift zones, the Alaska Shellfish Growers
Association proposed that these larval drift zones be eliminated
while the department proposed that they be increased from three
to twelve zones. After much negotiation, six larval drift zones
were designated. Also, ADF&G's memorandum says it would take a
change in statutes to allow the importation of aquatic stocks
into the state. However, that's not the case because the
importation of aquatic stocks is regulated by the Board of
Fisheries, which can, through regulation, allow even exotic
species into the state.
2:08:56 PM
MR. PAINTER, in response to Representative Wilson, related that
unique to geoducks is their retention of the toxin in paralytic
shellfish poisoning. He informed the committee that within a
one-square-foot area the toxin levels in the clams would range
"all over the board." He suggested that the aforementioned is
due to the fact that most of the fisheries are taking place
during the winter months when some [are not feeding and do not
flush out the toxins].
2:10:30 PM
ALAN AUSTERMAN, testifying on his own behalf, began by relating
that he has spent the last four years working with the shellfish
industry on how it can expand and grow. He noted that not all
the problems were created by the Murkowski Administration as
evidenced by the many regulations established by the Knowles
Administration. There are some inherent problems with how ADF&G
manages wild stocks versus farmed stocks. He highlighted that
ADF&G's mandate is to manage wild stocks, which is evidenced
further in the department's testimony at the last House Special
Committee on Fisheries' meeting. Mr. Austerman opined that this
is really an economic development issue and moving geoducks from
one part of the state to another provides an opportunity and
isn't really problematic. With regard to the previously
mentioned problems with the hatchery, he opined that those were
created because road block after road block was created during
this process of establishing the geoduck industry. He
attributed the aforementioned to the Knowles Administration
under which geoduck farms were permitted in areas where geoducks
already existed. The conflicts between farmed and wild stocks
has caused much controversy and many problems. He opined that
the hatchery built itself up thinking the geoduck industry would
grow and expand, but it didn't. Therefore, the hatchery has
suffered and efforts to establish a shellfish hatchery in
Ketchikan did not manifest because the industry was not moving
forward fast enough.
MR. AUSTERMAN then expressed his disappointment with the earlier
comparison of geoducks and zebra mussels. Zebra mussels are
like ground cover that chokes out other things whereas clams,
geoducks, live under the substrate and have their neck up to
filter the water and thus do not move in and destroy an area.
With regard to the use of sterile geoducks, Mr. Austerman opined
that it's apparent that the conditions of reproduction aren't
present due to the temperature of the water. He suggested that
1,000 years ago there probably weren't any geoducks in Southeast
Alaska. If evolution continues and geoducks naturally occur in
Southeast Alaska, he inquired as to the problem even if they did
reproduce and grow in an area where they are not today.
2:16:01 PM
MR. AUSTERMAN suggested that there will be many issues that the
legislature will become involved with, including the need to
move the farming aspect of shellfish out of ADF&G and to DNR.
He noted that his discussions with the ADF&G on the
aforementioned have not elicited any strong objections.
2:16:51 PM
CO-CHAIR GATTO acknowledged that the zebra mussel is a different
species and thus its use in the example was simply to relate a
situation in which a species was introduced. Furthermore, the
reference to evolution is really a reference to migration.
2:17:24 PM
JIM SEEB, Chief Fisheries Scientist, Division of Commercial
Fisheries, Alaska Department of Fish & Game, noted his agreement
that the area north of Cape Fairweather up to Cape St. Elias is
a real barrier to migration for many animals. The department
has some serious concerns with the uncertainty associated with
any fish or shellfish introduction. He pointed out that geoduck
larvae naturally occurs throughout Southeast Alaska and those
settle on some beaches and develop thriving populations.
However, geoducks don't naturally occur in Southcentral Alaska
and if transplanted, the consequences are uncertain. If
geoducks introduced in Southcentral Alaska did reproduce, the
females produce millions of larvae each year that could spread
rapidly and could compete in the water column, cause predator
increases for other species, compete in the food web, and alter
the food web in unpredictable ways. With regard to the
aforementioned thriving red king crab fishery that was
transplanted into the Berents Sea, Mr. Seeb pointed out that
those crabs have migrated to the Norwegian Sea and completely
disrupted the economy of Norway with its cod fishery. The
aforementioned uncertainties come with introducing species. The
Internet offers example after example of catastrophic unintended
consequences resulting from introducing species.
2:21:19 PM
JOHN HILSINGER, Fishery Biologist IV, Division of Sport Fish,
Alaska Department of Fish & Game, reiterated the department's
concern with regard to the introduction of species in areas
where they do not currently exist. Typically, when a species
doesn't exist in a certain area, there's a reason although it's
not always apparent. Therefore, the fact that [certain species]
don't exist in an area doesn't mean that they can't be
introduced, survive, reproduce, and potentially cause some
problems. For that reason, Mr. Hilsinger suggested that one
should not assume that geoducks could not survive and reproduce
in areas such as Kachemak Bay and Prince William Sound.
2:22:10 PM
CO-CHAIR GATTO inquired as to what happens if they are
introduced in the aforementioned areas and do reproduce. He
highlighted that geoducks don't move. He questioned whether Mr.
Hilsinger is concerned because he does not want to introduce any
species [to an area where they are not naturally occurring] or
is this species in particular suspect.
MR. HILSINGER clarified that geoducks do move as they have a
fantastic larval drift. Females produce millions of larvae that
enter the currents and drift from area to area. There is no
information with regard to whether geoducks would reproduce in
Southcentral, but if they did they could disrupt other species
in that area as well as the food web in ways that cannot be
predicted. Most introductions that have had catastrophic
impacts were impacts that weren't predicted. For example, the
State of Montana introduced mysis shrimp into Flathead Lake in
order to enhance the kokanee population that was feeding on
daphnia. However, the mysis shrimp were never available to the
kokanee in the water column, and in fact the shrimp ate all the
daphnia. The kokanee population then crashed and the eagles
that depended on the kokanee population crashed, and the bears
left. Such situations in which unintended consequences ripple
through the ecosystem have caused many states to be very
cautious with regard to introducing a species. Mr. Hilsinger
then pointed out that the larval drift zones in Alaska are more
liberal than those in Washington and Canada, which he attributed
partly to pressure from the aquaculture industry. He mentioned
that the department did work with Mr. Painter in order to make
compromises that could facilitate aquaculture development.
2:25:20 PM
CO-CHAIR GATTO posed a situation in which geoduck larvae drifted
and settled in Polly Creek, and asked Mr. Hilsinger to predict
whether the geoducks would compete or coexist with the razor
clams that are naturally there or would the geoducks die off.
MR. HILSINGER said he would hesitate to forecast the situation
at all because the outcome of transplanting any species outside
of its native range is unpredictable. He said that the larvae
may settle in some areas or they may cause competition problems
in the water column. It is unknown whether the larvae of native
species would be out competed in the water column by the larvae
of a new species. The impacts would not be limited to those
occurring after settling, they could occur anywhere in the food
web.
2:26:42 PM
REPRESENTATIVE WILSON asked whether water in Southeast Alaska's
latitude is warmer than water in the latitude of the Aleutian
Chain.
MR. HILSINGER explained that there are fixed oceanic currents
and temperatures and that these occur in certain patterns;
therefore, latitude cannot be used in determining water
temperatures.
2:27:48 PM
REPRESENTATIVE GUTTENBERG asked why there is no fiscal note when
there is a need for ADF&G to conduct research on geoduck
farming.
MR. HILSINGER explained that as chief scientist he cannot answer
the question. He related that the ADF&G commissioner is trying
to follow the governor's lead in being frugal. He agreed that
there needs to be research whether or not geoducks are
transplanted outside of their native range. He noted that ADF&G
has co-authored research proposals with the previous operators
of the [Seward] hatchery to study a variety of topics, including
development of sterile scallops. He said that he thought the
hatchery was now raising 6-8 species of bivalves.
2:29:34 PM
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON asked what species would geoducks compete
with or displace in Southeast Alaska.
MR. HILSINGER said that Representative Seaton accurately
described the competition in the substrate for where geoducks
occur naturally in Southeast Alaska, and that competition is
probably with a few tunicate worms. When a species occurs
naturally there is natural predation and competition that keeps
everything in balance. He said he does not fully understand the
impacts and what the competition would be in the larval drift
area when there are millions of larvae from many different
species co-migrating.
2:30:28 PM
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON asked what species would be displaced by
adult geoducks in the Kodiak and Prince William Sound areas or
was Mr. Hilsinger only talking about geoduck larvae in the
plankton.
MR. HILSINGER reiterated that the results can be unpredictable
as he pointed out with the aforementioned examples of red king
crab and mysis shrimp. He explained that history from around
the world shows that introducing species often causes serious
and unintended consequences. Therefore, he emphasized, states
and nations globally do not endorse introducing species without
extensive research ahead of time. He stressed that research has
not been done to know what could occur in Alaska.
MR. HILSINGER further explained that ADF&G is not worried about
displacement as much as an ecosystem change and disruption of
the food web. The impact of introducing geoducks might not be
displacement in the substrate. Instead, he said, it might be
displacement in the water column, or the billions of new larvae
drifting in an area might cause the buildup of a primary
predator that would then impact native bivalves.
2:33:44 PM
CYNTHIA PRING-HAM, Mariculture Coordinator, Division of
Commercial Fisheries, Alaska Department of Fish & Game, in
response to a question, stated that the species name for
geoducks is Panopea abrupta and that it was previously named
Panopea generosa. She further explained that there are a couple
of species in the Panopea genus that are found within the
Northwest Region. She offered to supply the committee with
further information in regard to the different species.
2:34:44 PM
CO-CHAIR GATTO asked whether it would be possible for geoducks
to extract only their favorite food from the water column and
thereby cause a bloom of other species in the water column.
MS. PRING-HAM said she is unfamiliar with how much phytoplankton
a geoduck utilizes and that she did not believe research has
been done on that particular issue. She further explained that
geoducks only eat phytoplankton, not zooplankton. In response
to additional questions, she said that phytoplankton migrate
within the water column and would not photosynthesize when
located in deep water, but that photosynthesis would occur when
the phytoplankton is in the intertidal zone where there is light
penetration. She stated that there are a lot of unknowns in
oceanography and she is unable to answer whether geoducks could
cause a bloom.
2:36:46 PM
REPRESENTATIVE WILSON related her assumption that ADF&G has not
done research on geoducks because it has not been funded by the
legislature. She asked if conducting the research could be done
without hiring additional personnel.
MS. PRING-HAM explained that ADF&G does not currently have
research for geoducks beyond the reconnaissance surveys that are
done for the commercial fishery. She expressed her belief that,
unless priorities are changed by the ADF&G commissioner,
additional money would be needed for hiring more staff to
conduct the research because current employees are working at
their limit. She said that an option to hiring more staff is
going out to contract; for example much of the research on
geoducks in Washington state is being done by the University of
Washington.
2:38:23 PM
JEFF HETRICK, Director, Alutiiq Pride Shellfish Hatchery,
explained that in some states triploidy or tetraploidy is used
as a management tool to alleviate the concerns for introductions
in terms of having reproductive stocks. He said that in his
opinion this technology is proven for oysters but not for other
shellfish species and that current technology would not solve
the issues being discussed by the committee. In regard to
geoducks becoming reproductive and filling up the water column,
he stated his belief that having a lot of geoducks would be a
good thing because then there would be a lot of wealthy people.
MR. HETRICK, in response to a question about triploidy and
tetraploidy, explained that a chemical is introduced shortly
after the fertilization process to change the chromosomal makeup
of the fertilized egg and render it sterile. Making oysters
non-reproductive is done not only because of the introduced-
species issue, but also as a market-quality issue since oysters
become gooey and unmarketable when they go into a reproductive
state. He explained that the problem with triploidy is that it
is not 100 percent effective in producing sterility.
2:43:08 PM
DAVID OTNESS, shellfish grower, informed the committee that he
was involved with the Egan Administration during the creation of
the first salmon hatcheries. He further informed the committee
that more recently he was a member of Governor Palin's
transition team for ADF&G. He said the relationship [of
shellfish growers] with ADF&G has been disappointing because of
the agency's fears. He estimated that a geoduck industry could
be worth several hundred million dollars a year and that he
would like to see a paradigm shift to mariculture as is
happening in the rest of the world. In response to a question,
he stated that he is not in favor of fish farms.
MR. OTNESS, in response to questions about the Exxon Valdez oil
spill, stated that he was not shellfish farming at that time,
but that significant damage would have occurred had he been
farming. He said he is unable to say if there has been a
recovery in wild shellfish from the spill because periodic die-
offs occur naturally in shellfish. He further noted that salmon
sharks have increased significantly since the establishment of
fish hatcheries in Prince William Sound. He also noted that
"dogfish" have moved from "Southeast" out to Kodiak and that
they are a huge nuisance. He said he believes that issues are
not being addressed that could bring back some of the stocks.
2:49:27 PM
CO-CHAIR GATTO closed public testimony after ascertaining that
no one else wished to testify. He said that HB 26 would be held
over.
HB 127-MCNEIL RIVER STATE GAME SANCTUARY
2:50:53 PM
CO-CHAIR GATTO announced that the final order of business would
be HOUSE BILL NO. 127, "An Act amending the boundaries of the
McNeil River State Game Sanctuary."
2:51:11 PM
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON, speaking as the sponsor of HB 127,
explained that HB 127 would add two areas to the McNeil River
State Game Sanctuary. These two small areas, one in the McNeil
River area and one in the Katmai area, have generated a huge
economy in bear viewing and are being put at risk by a proposed
hunt. The bill would prevent hunting in these two areas.
2:52:13 PM
CO-CHAIR GATTO announced that HB 127 is being held until the
next committee meeting.
ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business before the committee, the House
Resources Standing Committee meeting was adjourned at 2:52:35
PM.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|